UNIFFORS STATEMENT ON RECENTLY CONFIRMED AMBASSADORS
Subject: Recently confirmed ambassadors
Foreign Secretary Alberto G. Romulo at a press briefing this week spoke of the “outstanding qualities” of the recently confirmed ambassadors but what struck us is that he skirted the issue of those who were nominated by him in violation of the policy against assigning envoys abroad when they have only two years of active service left.
The two-year rule is something that cannot be swept under the rug if the rule of law is not be made a mockery of. What is at stake in the strict implementation of the regulation is the morale of career officers who deserve to be given the break that the soon-to-retire ambassadors have enjoyed several times over.
The rule’s strict application is no longer possible with respect to several of the envoys whose nominations have been confirmed but the question is far from academic because we suspect that several will be tempted to transform themselves into political appointees when the time for their retirement arrives. As a matter of fact, some have already laid the ground for such surreptitious and irregular mutation.
The newly constituted provisional executive committee of the original Unifors may wish to secure a commitment from the foreign secretary that he will reject any and all such moves.
Uniffors will continue to expose any machinations that it discovers as well as exert unremitting peer group pressure in all fora to which it has access in order that the evil plans of a few will not prejudice the majority.
We wish to single out our principal suspects
whom we will subject to continuous bombardment. This is just one of the salvos in our calibrated response to the injustice that threatens to further erode the morale and spirit of many career officers.
Our hall of fame is composed of:
1. Mrs. Estrella Berenguel. She should retire in
February of 2006. Ever since she became an
officer through the qualifying, not open, examination in 1975, she has never been assigned to a hardship post. She is computer illiterate. Her language qualifications are limited to English and Filipino and perhaps some regional dialect. If she had entered the diplomatic service of a country that
separates its diplomats and consuls from day 1,
we believe she would have been forced to specialize in consular work.
2. Mr. Norberto Basilio. The only good thing we
can say about him is that he is better than the
past-70 year old Jose Lino Guerrero he is
replacing in Bangladesh. He would have been sent out earlier if Guerrero, whose sexual harassment case has not yet been resolved satisfactorily, had not been extended in Dhakka. Mr. Basilio, who is out of his depth in the OMEAA, cannot even distinguish a Chargé
d’Affaires, a.i. from an ambassador because when he was CDA in Kuala Lumpur, his calling card read : “Ambassador Norberto Basilio, CDA.” His groveling attitude when he questioned Mr. Saludo during the latter’s briefing in the Department was pathetic. Mr. Tiglao dreams of reading Socrates in the original. We suspect that Mr. Basilio doesn’t even care to dream about reading Socrates because he
never seriously tried to learn Greek during his
six years or more in Athens.
3. Mr Jose del Rosario. He planned the great
to-do about policy consultations between home office authorities and heads of post to be held in Clark last October. He could not even persuade the foreign secretary to push through with it. The most he could do was to inform our posts abroad that the consultations were postponed to next year. A head of planning who could not identify even only a slightly less nebulous period than “next year.”
4. Mr. Jose Zaide. He employed his daughter as
an employee when he was ambassador in Bonn. He began the practice of hiring ghost casuals also in the German capital. He carted away the embassy Noritake set after his tour of duty in Vienna, leaving poor Ambassador Victor Garcia without such material needed for proper entertaining. How he has gotten away with murder all these years is a great mystery to us.
Mrs. Susan Castrence is not on our list of
suspects. We have learned that she had asked for New Zealand and was looking forward to retiring after enjoying the more relaxing pace there. We understand she has no plans of working for an extension. We have good reason to believe she will stick to this decision. If she does, the officials cited in nos. 1 to 4 should take note.
We do not question the “outstanding qualities,”
in the words of the foreign secretary, of these
ambassadors. We only list down some facts which give us reason to strongly suspect that they will not let go when the time comes.
We trust that we will be proven wrong.
on November 27th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
I think that the list should include ALL “suspects”, i.e. appointees who are retiring within the next two years and extendees. Without doubt, Amb Castrence is a good officer, but she is retiring in less than two years. Thus, her appointment is in violation of the foreign service law, notwithstanding the information received by Uniffors that she will not seek an extension.
on November 27th, 2005 at 6:19 pm
The list, according to Uniffors, includes only the principal suspects. The enumeration is not exclusive.
on November 27th, 2005 at 7:07 pm
Well, it erodes the credibility of Uniffors if it states, on one hand “…the two year rule is something that cannot be swept under the rug if the rule of law is not to be made a mockery of…” while on the other hand, it excludes Amb Castrence’s appointment. I thought the uniffors is taking up the cudgels for the objective implementation of the law –
on November 27th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
Uniffors based its statement on Mrs. Castrence on information it received that she was not going to ask for an extension. If you have contrary information, post it. But I agree with them that there should be no shotgun approach.
In case you missed something in the Uniffors position, let me summarize it again. They believe the two year rule should be strictly implemented. They suspect that several among the recently confirmed envoys will break the rule. Mrs. Castrence is not one of the suspects. Is that so hard to understand or stomach?
on November 27th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
In other words, Uniffors is not saying that Mrs. Castrence should be extended.
on November 27th, 2005 at 10:25 pm
There is no perfect person so there will be some
shortcomings that could be noted in each individual. You should focus on the main issue:
The observance of the law stating everybody must
“compulsorily and automatically retire at age 65.”
During the deliberations in Congress, one Congressman correctly pointed out that the above
phrase means that all the DFA has to do is to send
notices to those nearing age 65 that their time is up.
The problem is the DFA has gone beyond this
ministerial duty and keeps interfering in the automatic operation of law.
The other focus should be Ex. O. 136. If GMA
can issue an Ex.O. repealing the retirement provision of Sec. 23, RA 7157, she can also issue another Ex.O. repealing Section 14 and abolish the FSO exams. Thus your survival is at stake in this dispute. Hope Uniffors remains focused on this topic, the danger that the career service corps could become not only an endangered but an
extinct species.
on November 27th, 2005 at 11:01 pm
Halika,
Can an executive order amend a law passed by congress?
on November 28th, 2005 at 12:29 am
Jaime,
Pls. read the column of Ellen T. on October 14.
on November 28th, 2005 at 8:39 pm
It’s pretty obvious that an executive order cannot amend a law enacted by congress. So the problem now is how to insure that a semblance of the rule of law be maintained in a Department of Foreign Affairs inhabited by lawless elements ( Berenguel and her fellow conspirators ) and a sheriff who is not willing to restore law and order.
The career officers will not become extinct if they do something drastic to suppress and punish the lawbreakers.
on November 29th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
29 November 2005
Hello and Good Day to all,
I dont know with the DFA, how and why do they assign these retirable ambassadors, other claims they don’t want to be assigned, but when their assignment is/are there they change their mind/s.
You keep on putting the negatives on your ambassadors, pls check how zaide, use the office for his own personal gains (not all naman), like using the service car as if owns it, just like what you have written against him during his stay in vienna, austria. Ask him also, (zaide), how he landed to become the head of his office (is it protocol)??? All I can say is, if an ambassador does not know how to differentiate an ambassador to a charge d’affaires, what kind of a diplomat do we have right now??? (silly thing, this guy becomes ambassador [is he really an ambassador???hehehehehe]…) poor DFA. PLs tell the secretary not to appoint him anymore, give the others a chance to grow and to learn the intricacies of being an ambassador. That is one thing that you can do for your DFA
on November 29th, 2005 at 9:17 pm
Pransmrr01,
The appointment of these soon-to-be-has-been’s is like a food chain that starts with the retirables themselves, proceeds to some members of the BFSA, then the Office of the Secretary up to the secretary himself, then the president. The best way to destroy the chain is to cut the roots by pressuring the envoys concerned.
I understand Uniffors always sends copies of its statements to the Office of the Secretary. Maybe King Sorreta is not giving Mr. Romulo the bad news. In which case Unifors should perhaps bring the matter up with the big boss.
on December 1st, 2005 at 11:35 pm
Brownman says :
The rank and file should ask their president, Mike, to protect their interests if the officers won’t. Or has he also become a company man?
on August 30th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Online Medicine Without Prescriptions…
Ultram Round ultram adipex generic walloping adipex generic….
on January 16th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
I can’t believe this is existing in the Foreign Service of the Philippines. One of those in the list is currently my Professor.
on March 12th, 2010 at 11:08 am
As the daughter of the one of the aforementioned ambassadors, the extension of her final posting was not of her choosing — I should know as we went home to celebrate her retirement only to find out that she was asked to stay on for a little bit longer. Unforturnately for the ‘career officers’ no one was qualified enough to replace her when her post was up. And I take exception to the tone that computer literacy or multi-lingual skills automatically sets today’s career officers to be more worthy than those who rose through the ranks on merit, diplomatic skills, people skills and understanding and application of foreign policy and international relations.
The countries she was assigned to throughout her 40+ years in the service were not always what she requested. She was a career diplomat and any location that gave her an opportunity to represent her country, her people and apply her knowledge then that’s where she wanted to be and she ensured that the Philippines and our government was represented well.
If ‘blogging’ makes Uniffors a force for change — good luck. Change requires more ambassadors (title or no title) like my mother who knew exactly what it took to represent the Philippines and the Filipinos she served to the very best of her abilities.